1. Add CNs where necessary and be as reasonably comprehensive as possible

All of my CN's are well meaning and with intent to ward from extreme emotional duress as much as possible. Of course this includes discussions of heavy content like Assault, Gun Violence, Suicide, etc. but also seemingly trivial sources of duress like 'Videogame Difficulty Discourse'. I apply them all equally so as not to make judgements of character for different people being sensitive to different subject matter. We all come for different backgrounds that can cause us to be upset in different ways I want to respect that.

It also includes noting of more abstract rhetorical framing of an argument which can cause distress or outrage. We live in a world where social media has worn down our emotional nerves so even rhetorical tactics like using Lots of Hypotheticals or Using Queer Status to Support an Argument can cause sudden emotional outrage and I do not want to be complicit in the social engineering that keeps people in a constant state of outrage and emotional turmoil.

So I say this all to say that every single one of my CNs is well meaning and not taking the piss out of the idea.

2. No public rating on a game attached to the insight:

This is because ratings are fickle and often spurious to change for me, so I'd rather have the insights I write considered on the merits of the words rather than in relation to a score, regardless of length or quality of any insight I write.

Along with this, a rating may be a spoiler of the insight itself which is not ideal. Along with also getting caught in the weeds of potential bad publicity.

3. No attacking the character of an author whether on a game or another writer

This one seems both obvious and silly but it's important to address the severity of what I mean by this.

What I mean here is that even if I directly look at the most rotten actions taken by another person like say Randy Pitchford (who would deserve that ire), I'm usually going to make a structural or cultural critique surrounding those actions as complicit in larger problems, rather than resorting to basic name calling. Individual attacks of character do nothing and offer mainly as a high engagement adrenaline pumping distraction point. That also means I'm not going to go around calling real life people evil, etc.

I'm also not going to say that a work exists for 'phony' reasons by the author, to clout chase or make money etc. Even in the cases where this is blatantly true, I highly recommend you also do not do this as it creates an atmosphere of paranoia that strangles what the work can say to us.

4. No assessments of a piece that is 'shelved' or 'abandoned' (retired is ok).

If you don't finish a game how can you know for sure if the criticisms you have sustain themselves? Tedium can decide the overall enjoyability of a piece maybe in support of it or against it.